On 02/27/2013 01:54 PM, Trevor G Quayle wrote:
> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>> On 02/27/2013 12:43 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>> Oh and if you guys haven't already noticed the Reference has undergone a
>> bit of a re-organization
>
> Is there a reason for the reorganization?  Usually reference standards try to
> preserve their organization and clause numbering where possible to maintain
> continuity.  Certainly people using the newest version can use the new reference
> and be followed, however, if people are reading back at old postings on various
> topics, it can cause some confusion.
>
> -tgq
>
>

Well there was considerable debate, and I'll have to admit that I wasn't 
100% on-board with the changes, but in the end it's all good. I'd have 
to say that the main reason(s) for the re-org was to address previous 
inefficiencies (some sections were missing) and to give the layout a 
less "tacked on" appearance. If something is grossly out of whack, sure 
I'd say fix it, however I'm fairly pleased with the end results.

Post a reply to this message